Suppression of Intelligent Design

A little while back I saw the controversial documentary "Expelled", with Ben Stein in the main role. While I was appalled by the ID propaganda in the movie, I was particularly intrigued by the stories of the allegedly "expelled" scientists.One example that I looked into was that of Richard Sternberg. An evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian institute, and managing editor of the journal "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington", who, according to the movie, was discriminated against after he published a paper by cdesign proponentsist Steven Meyer.I briefly looked at his case and saw that he had not been dismissed from the institute upon the publication of the controversial paper. I took this to mean that the movie had embellished its claims that he had suffered persecution for his views.However, after a recent discussion with a friend of mine, I decided to read Sternberg's own account. He claims to have been treated vehemently by his peers and by the Biological Society of Washington, that rumors were circulated about him by "government officials on government time using government computers", he also claims to have had his research curtailed and placed under the supervision of a restrictive and hostile supervisor. He was later demoted without explanation. Richard Sternberg | Evolutionary Biologist (see pages 7-8)When a Congressional subcommitee launched an investigation into the matter they too found that "Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials". http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.phpMy questions for debate are:1) Is this a case of discrimination against Sternberg's views on ID?
2) If yes, is this something that is prevalent within the scientific community?
3) Is there justification for the suppression of ID in academia?I personally do not believe there is much scientific basis for ID, but I'm not a scientist. It seems to me that if a paper makes it through peer-review it should be allowed to be published, if only to be refuted by another peer-reviewed paper.Your thoughts?
Meldinoor

Meyer's Hopeless Monster.The above cited is a discussion of the material of your message 1. Take a look at that first. Maybe you can ask your questions there.Going to hold off on promoting this topic. Maybe later, if the above cited does not serve the purpose.I've also "bumped" the topic for you.Adminnemooseusps added by edit: Isn't that the famous typo from "Of Pandas and People", where they goofed up when they changed "creationist" to "design proponents". Or something along that line. Very odd that you should use that phrase here.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Thank you Adminnemooseus, it looks like that thread should do nicely.

quote:

---

Isn't that the famous typo from "Of Pandas and People", where they goofed up when they changed "creationist" to "design proponents". Or something along that line. Very odd that you should use that phrase here.

---

I prefer to call ID proponents by their true name, the one that clearly shows their relation to creationists. I think it has been used enough on this forum for most to understand what it means. I will clarify next time.